The economy over residents

Fauve writes*

Despite the city of Abeokuta being one of the largest water distributors to urban cities in Southwestern Nigeria, the residents of Abeokuta themselves suffer greatly from water scarcity.  A growing population and intensifying climate change (pdf) is making the already poor potable water supply even more scarce. But politicians are prioritizing economic development over the interests of residents.

The Oyan dam, one of the main supplies of water to Abeokuta, was built in 1983 by the Ogun Oshun River Basin Development (pdf) for municipal uses in hopes of solving the water scarcity problem. However, rather than supplying a sufficient amount of water to residents, the Oyan dam is barely distributing water. Poor infrastructure, insufficient connections, and a lack of maintenance means that only 1.3% of Abeokutians get their water from Oyan.

It is important to note, however, that the dams built were not only meant for municipal uses, but also for industrial and irrigation uses in hopes of the state gaining more financial income. After a study in 2019, it became clear who the state prioritizes. Whilst the unmet potable water supply for residents was 4.5 MCM (millions of cubic meters), the demand for industrial and irrigation uses was often fully met. Unmet demand becomes understandable when looking at the revenue and expenditure of the main regulator in Abeokuta, The Ogun State Water Corporation (OSWC). In spite of gaining N9.1 billion a year (US$20k), with a recurrent expenditure set at N1.6 billion (US$3k), and capital expenditure at N7.5 billion (US$16k) supposedly used to tackle water scarcity in Abeokuta, the government prioritizes rehabilitation of dams, leading to the issue of its populace not having water being put on hold.

Due to the dam not supplying Abeokutians with enough water, the residents choose to take matters into their own hands by investing in self-supply via “private utility companies.” Therefore, if residents are able to afford it, they tend to install tanks to ensure clean drinking water. In fact, 68.6% of residents rely on their own private utilities whilst only 2.63% rely on the pipeline connection provided by government water supplies.

Not only has the lack of government action to provide potable water to Abeokuta resulted in residents installing private utilities, but it has also increased the price of water due to the costs of aging infrastructure. Residents who commonly relied on tanks to gather water face a price increase of 33% (N500 or US$1.09) per m3 of water. Though this may not seem drastic, for a family or community with an unstable income, this could decrease the average number of liters they buy, or set a stop on buying clean water at all, leading to high risks of developing waterborne diseases from unsanitary water supplies.

Bottom line: The dams constructed in Abeokuta are inadequate in ensuring a sufficient potable water supply to its residents due to insufficient funds put towards the reconstruction and building of pipeline connections as a cause of government interests lying in the economy rather than its citizens.


* Please help my Water Scarcity students by commenting on unclear analysis, alternative perspectives, better data sources, or maybe just saying something nice 🙂

Seville: public water, private interests

David writes*

The Mediterranean Basin is one of the regions that will suffer the most from climate change. From soil erosion to heatwaves and heavy precipitation, this territory has already started to endure the consequences of the changing weather. Within this context, Seville serves as a particularly interesting case to study the availability and management of one of humankind’s most precious (and yet vulnerable) natural resources: water.

While average individual consumption was 176 litres per capita per day (LCD) in 1991, it was down to 113 LCD in 2022. This 36% reduction results from the combination of a drought in the 1990s that almost forced an evacuation of the city and awareness campaigns carried out by EMASESA – the public company responsible for water in Seville’s municipality.

Since then, however, the region has not suffered from autocratic changes in its administration nor turned to market-based solutions. In fact, the price of water has been frozen for the past three years, which demonstrates the efforts to protect the current system, regardless of increasing worries about water availability and the activation of a drought status last October.

So far, it is possible to say that Seville’s administration has been successful in managing the existing resources and has benefited its consumers by creating a Water Observatory initiative where the population takes part in publicly supervising water – ecologically, politically and socioeconomically.

Nevertheless, it is worth thinking about future scenarios where scarcity becomes more pressing and, in so doing, how society will react to these changes. In other words, while leaving economics aside has helped Seville’s governments so far, can subsidies and government assistance help tackle Spain’s changing climate?

Another aspect to consider is the underlying taboo on raising prices. Last week I talked to an environmental activist who works in the water sector in Seville, and I asked his opinion on increasing prices. Unfortunately, and yet not surprisingly, he answered that higher prices would cause so much civil dissatisfaction that legislators would be punished at the polls.

This response raises a critical question of water governance, i.e., how much civic participation is beneficial and sustainable for citizens?

To be clear, I am not (yet) supporting a full market-led system wherever shortages are possible, but it is worth questioning which mechanisms can best protect water availability without being obscured by politics or individual interests.

Seville has a constructive system that has made water management more participatory and transparent, but this system could bring negative consequences in the future. Put differently, the combination of EMASESA’s monopoly over water and Spain’s political system can create challenges.

Prices that reflect scarcity, in contrast, might help “democratise” access to resources, while increasing infrastructure investment and public awareness.

Bottom Line: Seville’s functional and participatory public water management disguises water’s treatment as a political resource. The city’s droughts and successful awareness campaigns might be postponing governments from translating the true cost of water into prices. Civilian democratising efforts mixed with a system dependent on populist policies that disregard the economic value of water may lead to catastrophe in a region that is slowly drying out.


* Please help my Water Scarcity students by commenting on unclear analysis, alternative perspectives, better data sources, or maybe just saying something nice 🙂

Bad management and dry taps in Turin

Kiara writes*

Water scarcity in the metropolitan area of Turin (Italy) is the result of climate change, weak government policy, and corruption.

Turin’s watershed stretches across 570 km2 at the foot of the Cottian Alps. With water coming from the Sangone, Dora, Stura and Po rivers (Italy’s longest), Turin does not seem a natural place for water scarcity, but now its citizens struggle for water.

The first issue Turin faces is leakage. According to a member of the Turin Water Committee, 47% of its 356 million m3 (MCM) supply is lost to leaks (Transnational Institute 2018). In 2022, Prime Minister Mario Draghi blamed leakage on bad management and weak governmental supervision of water allocation. SMAT (Societa Metropolitata Acque Torino), the public organization that has managed Turin’s water since 2001 has not made much progress in reducing leaks. Their Consolidated Financial Statement for 2021, 2022 says very little about investing in leak management.

Second is climate change. In 2022, Turin experienced a drought of 110 days — the second longest drought in 65 years (Corriere Torino 2022). The 80 percent drop in precipitation left the Po dry in places.

The weakness of SMAT’s management is clearly shown in the leakage statistics, but also in social tensions over sharing scarcity.

A state of emergency was declared in June 2022, with many limits on water use. Outdoor watering and irrigation, car washing, and refilling pools and fountains were prohibited, on pain of fines ranging from €25 to 500. The state of emergency shows how bad management can take away peoples’ right to use water for recreational but also for farming.

With surrounding cities re-entering a state of emergency in February 2023, it will not be long before Turin is also in a state of emergency. It is urgent that SMAT, the Municipalities of Turin, and the Italian government work quickly to reduce the harm that water scarcity will bring to Turin’s people.

Bottom Line: Poor management has increased water scarcity in Turin. Citizens deserve better.


* Please help my Water Scarcity students by commenting on unclear analysis, alternative perspectives, better data sources, or maybe just saying something nice 🙂

Zurich vetoes water scarcity

Max writes*

On the first day of 2022, residents of Zurich saw their water bill shrink by 15%. With numerous water economists pointing to price increases as a solution to water scarcity, how did the Swiss achieve this reduction? Two words: effective governance.

Much like ancient Athens, Switzerland is a direct democracy [pdf] wherein its political decisions are made by citizens with less of a reliance on representatives. This is encapsulated by quarterly federal referendums (the United States has never held a federal-level referendum). When it comes to water management, the federal government has little authority as most cantons and municipalities hold the discretion to design policy that works best for their communities. This policy is guided by the frequent canton and municipal level referendums which have enabled the country to properly manage its rich water resources.

Image source

The vote of the people has resulted in a 2019 veto of the privatization of the Zurich water utility (WVZ) by the local government. The inhabitants of Zurich believe that water should not be a for-profit commodity and that its price should reflect necessary revenue for operation and maintenance. This explains the decision to reduce the water consumption fee by 15%.

The matter was put up for a vote in 2021. However, this time representatives were involved. The City Council of Zurich applied to the Municipal Council to make revisions to the Water Tax Ordinance and the Water Tariff. Both of these councils are elected by the residents of Zurich and decisions made can be challenged by residents. Furthermore, residents hold the right of revocation which can be used to dissolve the local government and install a new one if the government does not live up to its promises.

The Municipal Council voted in favor of the revisions reducing the water tariff by 15% starting in 2022. In Zurich, customer tariffs are made up of a consumption fee and an annual basic fee. The Council’s decision resulted in consumption fees being reduced from 1.08 CHF (1.16 USD) to 0.92 CHF (0.99 USD) per m3 of water. The annual basic fee remained largely unchanged. This reduced the average cost of water per m3 from 2 CHF (2.14 USD) to approximately 1.6 CHF (1.72 USD).

The healthy financial performance of the WVZ enabled this change. Efficient water infrastructure as well as less-frequent leakage problems have made the utility more cost-efficient. Another contributing factor to the decision is that Zurich continues to benefit from an abundant supply [pdf] of water. These supplies are significantly larger than the water demand of 160 liters [pdf] per day per resident.

Power to the people sounds great but what is to stop people from making water free and abusing its abundance? While the local government holds most of the decision-making authority regarding water policy, the Supreme Court can step in if things fall completely astray. Moreover, given the supply and demand outlined above, the price of water could likely be reduced further. But the Swiss are aware of their responsibility to protect precious water resources and ensure supply for generations to come so it’s being kept at a break-even point.

Bottom Line: The Swiss system of governance has allowed the residents of Zurich to have a direct say in the city’s water policy and benefit from reduced water prices. Prices remain low for now but in the future, they can be adjusted to reflect scarcity.


* Please help my Water Scarcity students by commenting on unclear analysis, alternative perspectives, better data sources, or maybe just saying something nice 🙂

Marseille: full canal and empty streams

Margot writes*

Despite being located in a dry and warm region, Marseille is described as the “world capital of water” by the World Water Forum. Indeed, Marseille is known for its efficient water management and water infrastructures like the canal of Marseille, the Roquefavour aqueduct, or the Palais Longchamp.

The Marseille Canal diverts water from the Durance river, which takes its source in the Alps, takes it to Marseille and provides the city with two thirds of its drinking water (Webzine Voyage). The canal, the primary water source of the city, is the main reason why taps could keep running last summer, when the city experienced the driest summer ever measured in France and the country was hit by several heatwaves (La Provence).

However, the Durance resources are not infinite as several portions of the river dried up last summer (Olive Oil Times). The prefecture of Bouches-du-Rhône had to declare a state of crisis and restrict water use in some areas of Marseille to preserve its water (Olive Oil Times). Restrictions during the maximum alert level included a prohibition to water lawns, to fill swimming pools, to clean waterproofed surfaces or to clean vehicles to name a few (Bouches-du-Rhône Prefecture). Prevention campaigns organized by the city and the water provider fostered collective awareness around water scarcity, encouraged citizens to respect restrictions, reduced demand and ultimately enabled Marseille to preserve its water resources even in a time of intense droughts (La Provence). Hence, while walking around Marseille in July 2022, one could see dry and yellow lawns or empty water fountains, but water would still flow if they turned on their tap (La Provence).

While this scene depicts how water management in Marseille succeeded in coping with water scarcity for urban dwellers, it is not the full picture. Unfortunately, local water streams and rivers independent of the Durance, in the hills surrounding the city were not able to resist droughts and global warming (La Provence). Thus, even if water is available at the tap, the drought affected local ecosystems and farmers who depend on irrigation (La Provence). According to the “Coordination Rurale” farmer’s organization [pdf], droughts in Marseille’s department resulted in crop losses of 30% for several crop types and 50% for olive crops.

Water scarcity in Marseille’s region also threatens biodiversity. For example fishes and insect larvae in dried-out streams or rivers with reduced flow rates are adversely affected (La Provence). The flora is also impacted as La Provence newspaper reported that oak trees died and wild boars and deers came inside villages near Marseille in search for water.

These problems will intensify in the future as drought periods become more frequent. For instance, there was a drought this winter (2023), and Le Monde explains that the river flow of the Huveaune, a river near Marseille, has never been so low in February.

Bottom line: Water scarcity and droughts in Marseille do not impact everybody in the same way. There is a discrepancy between the urban canal and the local streams and rivers. Consumers who rely on the Marseille Canal experience water scarcity as simple water restrictions during droughts whereas consumers who rely on local streams and rivers are economically impacted by water scarcity. The flora and fauna in and around streams are directly threatened by water scarcity.


* Please help my Water Scarcity students by commenting on unclear analysis, alternative perspectives, better data sources, or maybe just saying something nice 🙂